Jump to content

smltwnrckr

Members
  • Content Count

    15,658
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by smltwnrckr

  1. So, you're spending Thanksgiving posting bad memes. You're a cool dude.
  2. I mean, it's thanksgiving. And you're shit posting me. With fun memes. You know, your other friends arent even here. Cuz maybe they have lives. So maybe you're on top of the most pathetic posters on here. Srzly
  3. Lol... triggered by losing to Fresno? Nice try. I've been watching my shitty team lose to fresno since you were a gleam in your daddy's balls. You're a dipshit. That's all. You know it. I know it. We all know it. Enjoy.
  4. The funny thing is I should be doing this for you. You're the second-most pathetic poster on here. Everyone knows it.
  5. There is a dumber dipshit on here, as hard as it is to believe.
  6. I'd be embarrassed to be the second dumbest poster on this board. I'd also be embarrassed if my team won a football championship and then only won 4 games the next year. That would be embarrassing.
  7. Yea. We suck. at least we have more than 4 wins, tho. Which is... well, we all know.
  8. If there are two words that describe me on here, you have them right with myopic and unreasonable. Just ask around.
  9. Also, you do nothing to negate the verifiable fact that your boy is the second biggest dipshit on the board.
  10. I acknowledge that last year was exceptional. I also acknowledge that sjsu won the conference football championship. Those are two objective, verifiable facts. I am interested in seeing some source that says otherwise. Yes. Sometimes in football, people can't play. It causes imbalances. See: Fresno State football 2019. How do you judge the quality of the season? By the next year? Cuz, you know, 2018/2019 Fresno.
  11. 4/12 I may have to upgrade you. This is not your best work. And your best work is... pedestrian.
  12. Explanation: I'm an idiot. I like to drag on sjsu. My team won a championship against a shitty conference, then won 4 games the next year. I want to be cool, so I ignore that. #asterisk
  13. Yes, I understand. You're the second biggest dipshit on this entire board.
  14. So, just to be clear... if you win a conference championship and then the next year you win 5 or fewer games, the championship you won the previous year is null and void. Officially. On this board. Am I correct in this?
  15. I reserve the right to respond to this at some point this week. But I'm drunk, and about to get laid. So, you'll just have to wait.
  16. California seems to be doing pretty well, btw. Had an uptick like last week, and then leveled out.
  17. I think self-deputized mobs carrying guns and killing people are bad. And I imagine state laws treat them differently both on paper and in practice.
  18. I'm not talking about his immediate options. When you walk into a politically volatile and violent scenario, like an armed protest or a riot, and you do so armed with the intent or willingness to use those arms against your presumed political enemies, or even people in this situation, there is an extremely good chance that fleeing is not going to be a viable option especially once you carry out an act of deadly violence against on of your foes. That's kind of the whole point here... the law only takes into considerations his options, decisions and threats in the moment and does not allow for t
  19. No, fleeing wasn't a viable option. He tried to flee. He failed. He shot three people and killed two because fleeing wasn't a viable option. I didn't say that. I said that had someone killed him after he killed the first guy, that person would have been acquitted. Maybe I'm still speculating, but I've seen multiple people who defended KR also state that it's probably true. And thinking about counterfactuals in history is different than thinking about counterfactuals in the law. There are specific standards in the law that predict circumstances, thus requiring people making and interpre
  20. Fleeing is rarely if ever a viable option in a volatile and charged situation. Walk into one with a gun, and you categorically increase the volatility and charged nature of any altercation, giving you a right to use lethal force. What we learned from this case is that the only options that can be considered for your legal liability as a shit head who made a bad choice are the ones immediately in front of you when you shoot people to death. Expect more shit heads who make bad choices to walk into volatile and charged situations with guns and kill people who they conveniently identified as their
  21. It's not a question of whether you have a right to defend your person with lethal force, it's a question of the burden of proof. It shifts the burden if proof for the state if you kill someone in your home. The burden is not to prove that the accused killer in fact did it, and did so willingly, knowingly, with intent, etc. Instead, the state has to prove that the dead person was NOT trying to kill the killer, and/or that the killer didn't think the dead person was trying to kill him. Why? Because there's an assumption that you have an absolute right to be in your home, with your family, armed
  22. And for the record, I don't think he necessarily should have been convicted of murder. I'm just saying that this situation is +++++ed up. Period. And it's not +++++ed up just because MSNBC has twits who say dumb shit. MSNBC has had twits who say dumb shit since MSNBC has existed. This is +++++ed up because lunatics think it's cool to deputize themselves and go after their political enemies, period. Women understand this in Texas. The families of the victims of KR understand this (and yes, they are victims. +++++ you.) And in this case, the leaving body bags in your wake makes you some sort of
×
×
  • Create New...